CAGIT jail tax passes Senate

House OKs bill curbing eminent domain.

House OKs bill curbing eminent domain.

January 27, 2006|MARTIN DeAGOSTINO Tribune Staff Writer

INDIANAPOLIS -- Voting unanimously, the Senate has authorized Elkhart and Marshall counties to use local income-tax revenues to operate new jails. Both counties already levy an income tax to finance planned or under-construction jails. The Senate bill lets them use some of that money for jail operations if tax proceeds exceed annual payments on construction bonds. Bill sponsor Sen. Marvin Riegsecker, R-Goshen, said a special jail tax in Elkhart County is raising about $8 million per year, compared to bond retirement needs of $6.3 million. Under Senate Bill 148, the county can apply the difference to operational costs, primarily staff and benefits. Riegsecker said the legislation does not authorize higher tax rates for the county adjusted gross income tax, or CAGIT. But it should dampen property tax pressures that would occur if the county relied on its property tax levy to staff the 1,100-bed facility that will open next year. Total construction costs are estimated at $95 million. The bill requires both counties to adopt ordinances stating how the money will be used. That way, Riegsecker said, residents would have opportunities to object, since CAGIT was sold to voters in both counties as a way to finance capital projects and provide limited property tax relief. Marshall County's planned jail is expected to cost $12 million to $14 million. Curbing eminent domain A bill curbing eminent domain is on its way to the Senate after a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives. House Bill 1010 applies mainly to situations where governments condemn private property so that other private interests can redevelop the land. The bill does not bar the practice, but sets tougher procedural and financial standards for the acquiring bodies. "Basically what we did is make it more expensive," bill sponsor Rep. David Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, said. As passed, the bill requires buyers to pay the owners 150 percent of fair-market value for condemned residential property, plus relocation costs and damages; 125 percent for farmland; and 100 percent for commercial properties, plus relocation costs and damages that could include loss of income. In some circumstances, it also requires the buyer to pay all or some legal fees incurred by the person fighting condemnation. Wolkins said the bill will not affect government's ability to condemn properties for a public use, such as roads, schools or airports. Rather, it affects condemnation for the public "good," as when properties are acquired for commercial or industrial development or expansion. The bill also affects property condemnations to clear and redevelop slum neighborhoods. In those cases, the bill tightens the legal definition of blighted areas or properties, but still imposes higher acquisition costs. Co-author Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, urged lawmakers to support the bill, but he objected to provisions that exempt the Department of Transportation. He said that could allow the state to convert private property into roads, then convey the road to a private operator through a lease agreement. Wolkins said that argument only holds if people believe the road is being built for the operator's benefit, and not for public use. Addressing election maps On a nearly party-line vote, the Republican-dominated House passed legislation designed to draw more compact and competitive election maps for Congress and the General Assembly. The bill assigns the every-10-year mapmaking task to a five-member bipartisan panel appointed by legislative leaders and Indiana's chief justice. It excludes recent officeholders or other political activists from appointment. Lawmakers would have to approve the maps in special session, but the bill gives no procedural guidance if lawmakers defeat the proposed districts. The bill does direct mapmakers to draw contiguous districts that are as compact as possible and generally coincide with county, city or precinct boundaries. The bill also directs mapmakers to respect racial and language minorities, and says no district shall deviate from the ideal population by more than 1 percent. According to Democrats, the bill violates two related constitutional provisions. It provides a judicial role in apportionment, violating separation of powers. And it authorizes a commission to draw election maps, which the Constitution assigns to the General Assembly. But backers said the judiciary's role is limited to naming one member of the redistricting commission, and that legislative approval of the maps satisfies the apportionment questions. The bill faces uncertain Senate prospects, as President Pro Tempore Robert Garton, R-Columbus, said he sees no realistic way to remove politics from an essentially political process. The House vote was 54-43, with all Democrats but three voting against the bill. Staff writer Martin DeAgostino: mdeagostino@sbtinfo.com (317) 634-1707